{{AFC comment|1=Do not waste your own time on this if multiple [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable]], [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]], [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]] sources that treat the topic in substantive detail<!--Inserted with Template:RSIS--> do not exist. If that's the case, no acceptable article will be possible because [[Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability|no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability]].--~~~~}}
Comment: Do not waste your own time on this if multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail do not exist. If that's the case, no acceptable article will be possible because no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.--~~~~
{{AFC comment|1=I suggest reading: [[Wikipedia:Wikipuffery]] and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch]] and edit accordingly. Avoid any evaluation in Wikipedia's voice, and get rid of the empty market-speak. Also, remove all external links in the body of the article.<p>Please note also that while I have not looked at the referencing in the depth needed to see if any of the sources cited are actual useful, ''as hidden among the dross'', I do see you have cited sources like Newswire, Crunchbase and Topionetworks, i.e., sources that contribute nothing whatever to demonstrating any [[WP:N|notability]]; sites that regurgitate the company's own press release material; mere database listings; the company's writings about itself – as well as unreliable, [[WP:USERGENERATED|user-generated]] content like answers from Quora.<p>An encyclopedia article needs to be supported by [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable]], [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]], [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]] sources that treat the topic in substantive detail<!--Inserted with Template:RSIS--> and be aware that [[WP:AKON|no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability]]. If the right types of sources, with the right depth of treatment, don't exist, don't waste your own time.<p>One more thing: 99 times out of 100 (that's probably underestimates the matter, actually), proposed articles like this are written by insiders, with a conflict of interest in editing. That means that I am just as sure you are subject to the mandatory disclosure requirements of [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure]], but have not complied. Accordingly, unless you can explain why you would have submitted this proposed article but really have no relationship with it, as would almost never be the case, please go comply with the linked policy; it's not difficult.--~~~~}}
- Comment: I suggest reading: Wikipedia:Wikipuffery and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and edit accordingly. Avoid any evaluation in Wikipedia's voice, and get rid of the empty market-speak. Also, remove all external links in the body of the article.
Please note also that while I have not looked at the referencing in the depth needed to see if any of the sources cited are actual useful, as hidden among the dross, I do see you have cited sources like Newswire, Crunchbase and Topionetworks, i.e., sources that contribute nothing whatever to demonstrating any notability; sites that regurgitate the company's own press release material; mere database listings; the company's writings about itself – as well as unreliable, user-generated content like answers from Quora.
An encyclopedia article needs to be supported by reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail and be aware that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. If the right types of sources, with the right depth of treatment, don't exist, don't waste your own time.
One more thing: 99 times out of 100 (that's probably underestimates the matter, actually), proposed articles like this are written by insiders, with a conflict of interest in editing. That means that I am just as sure you are subject to the mandatory disclosure requirements of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, but have not complied. Accordingly, unless you can explain why you would have submitted this proposed article but really have no relationship with it, as would almost never be the case, please go comply with the linked policy; it's not difficult.--~~~~
{{AFC comment|1=Since articles like this are almost always written by insiders, coupled with this being such a blatant commercial, makes it a near certainty that you need to comply [[Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure]]. You may not have been aware of that, but it is mandatory and it's not difficult. Do not edit this further until you do so. Meanwhile, this needs a fundamental rewrite to remove the hagiography. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.--~~~~}}
- Comment: Since articles like this are almost always written by insiders, coupled with this being such a blatant commercial, makes it a near certainty that you need to comply Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. You may not have been aware of that, but it is mandatory and it's not difficult. Do not edit this further until you do so. Meanwhile, this needs a fundamental rewrite to remove the hagiography. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.--~~~~
I have re-declined without a source review because upon coming across this submission, I had to remove almost all the prose given that it was copy-paste copyright violation.
I have re-declined without a source review because upon coming across this submission, I had to remove almost all the prose given that it was copy-paste copyright violation.--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
--~~~~}}
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Fuhghettaboutit/AfC language dump" page.
